Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS (EMERGENCY CUSTOMS DUTIES) ACT, 1931.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): I beg to move,
That the Order, dated the 24th day of December, 1931, made by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under the Horticultural Products (Emergency Customs Duties) Act, 1931, a copy of which was presented to this House on the 2nd day of February, 1932, he approved.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Should I be in order, Mr. Speaker, in suggesting that the two Motions on the Order Paper for to-day be taken together for the purposes of a general Debate, leaving the House free to, vote on them separately?

Mr. SPEAKER: I. think that was done on the previous occasion, and, if it is the will of the House, we might take the same course to-day.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am grateful to the hon. Member for the suggestion, which I am sure will meet the convenience of the House. Hon. Members will have in their possession the two Orders which have been issued dealing with products under the Importation (Horticultural Products) procedure. The commodities with which we are dealing to-day differ materially, however, from those which were debated under a similar Order issued by the Board of Trade. We are dealing with perishable goods. I should like particularly to emphasise the fact that, in the main, we are dealing with goods on a seasonal basis. In some of the cases or in a large number of the cases they are products of a luxury character, or they can be properly described as of a luxury character for certain earlier periods and then they merge more into general crops.
The House will observe that a considerable number of these Orders have not yet come into operation and that only a limited number of them have been in operation since the 5th January of this year. Therefore, I am not in a position to give very definite information at this stage as to what has happened in regard to the revenue collected under the duties, or the effect which the duties have had in restricting the imports into this country. As I explained to the House in introducing the proposals originally, this is largely experimental work on the
part of the Government. In framing the duties, one had to bear in mind that the object was to stop as fat as possible the importation into this country of things which are unnecessary or purely luxury products, and, on the other hand, to have due regard to the circumstances of time and the opportunity for alternative production in the various industries affected. In regard to grapes, it was clear from conferences with the industry that the industry would not be in a position in the immediate future for this year to increase the output of grapes, but it was clear that the action of the Government, showing that they intended to take definite steps in the matter, would be a direct incentive to the industry to expand their glass and plant new vines. Therefore, in cases like that the duties that have been imposed under the Orders are moderate.
It may be felt by some hon. Members that some of the dates and some of the duties may not meet the case of their own particular district, but I can assure the House that the duties have been imposed after very careful consultation with representatives of the industries concerned and that in dealing with the matter I have taken into account all the information and advice which has been open to me and my Department from those particularly concerned. On rose trees there is a duty of 30s. per 100 as from the 5th January to the 30th April, but that does not preclude me from dealing at a subsequent period with rose trees which come in at a later date in the year. We shall have to deal with that matter under the wider Measure, the terms of which we discussed in the House yesterday. In the case of flowers, our effort has been to put the cheap outdoor grown flowers at an advantage, for the reason that we do not grow them in this country at that particular time, but we have endeavoured to put the heavier weight of duty against flowers produced under glass, which we can stimulate in this country. It is possible that we can alter and modify these proposals in the future.
The first Order is wider and more comprehensive than the second Order, which deals with tomatoes. We have endeavoured to treat this problem with moderation, more so because I was well aware when I was dealing with the matter
that there lay behind it the wider policy of the Government in regard to it. From the point of view of the horticultural producer in this country, the one thing that is essential is to give him confidence as to continuity of policy. I hope that confidence has been assured to him by the policy which we have pursued in this matter. The alternative remains open to me to deal with some of these problems either under the Horticultural Products Act which runs for the year or under the wider Act, but in any case the market gardener, the bulb producer, the plant producer have an incentive to proceed with the growth of the products to which they have paid attention, and can feel that the Government's policy is not a purely temporary one. I shall be glad to answer any questions which may be put to me.
Already, there are indications from various parts of the country that the growers realise the opportunities which lie before them. Reports have come to me and to the Department from many parts of the country of the efforts which are being made to increase the production of broccoli and strawberries, and other products, which of itself will have an effect upon the canning industry, a growing industry of considerable importance to the consumer.
Within the last week I and my officials have been in close consultation with the larger buyers representing the great hotels and the railway companies, and from them we have received a great deal of useful information as to how we can assist in developing the use of the products we are considering to-day I look to that conference, and to the subsequent. steps that arc going to be taken for co-operation between those who are purchasers and distributors of these products, as of great importance in regard to the grading and attractive packing of these products and placing them before the consumers of the country
in carrying out the powers which have been placed in my hands I have endeavoured to give encouragement at the earliest possible moment to these industries and at the same time to have regard to the possibility of producing the articles ourselves. The problem of potatoes presents peculiar difficulties this year. The very early potato is obviously a complete luxury, but at a
later date one must have regard to the general supply of potatoes in this country. This year, as it happens, there has been, owing to climatic circumstances, a shortage in the potato crop. That, of course, is a material consideration, and one which has weighed with me in dealing with that problem. Some may think that I have been too moderate, others that I have been too extreme, but I have honestly tried to hold the balance and deal with this experimental problem in the light of the knowledge that I have been able to get from the industry. I hope that the House will affirm these Orders.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Once again we on this side of the House have to confess to a feeling of disappointment at the lack of completeness on the part of the right lion. Gentleman in explaining why the Order has taken the form it has; why these duties, to be placed on luxury articles to prevent their importation, should cover the whole field of vegetable and fruit production. There has been no explanation why these duties have been placed on those essential articles which we find in the list in both these Orders. The Minister of Agriculture has said that it is too early to state the effect of these proposals. That places us at a disadvantage. Only three or four commodities have so far been taxed. The duties apply in a few cases from the 5th January, but the majority of the commodities are to be taxed at later dates. We have had no explanation why cherries are to be taxed from the 1st May to the 30th June, currants from the 1st May to the 31st July, and gooseberries from the 1st May to the 30th June. There has been no explanation why there should be these different dates. We know that these goods come into competition with home products in a more intense form at certain times of the year, but we do not know why many of these articles only appear in the Schedule at a later date. The right hon. Gentleman has had consultations with nurserymen and market gardeners and other interested people, but it is difficult for anyone to understand why cherries are to be taxed at 3d. per lb., currants at 2d., and gooseberries at ½d. per lb. No reason is given for this difference.
I understand that the duty is assessed on the wholesale value, but there is no hint in these Orders as to whether it is
a tax on the percentage value of the wholesale price or whether it is arrived at by negotiations between the interests concerned and the Minister without any regard to the consumer or anybody else. There is a great deal that remains to be explained. Take the case of strawberries, which are to be taxed at 2s. 6d. from the 1st April to the 31st May, but on the next day, the 1st June, the tax is to drop to 6d. What is the explanation of that? Why is it necessary to put a tax of 2s. 6d. for the month of May and a tax of only 6d. for the month of June? The public is very much concerned about the increase in prices which these Orders must entail. The right hon. Gentleman says that he has had some difficulty in dealing with the question of potatoes because of the shortage of supply, but notwithstanding the great dearth of potatoes the Government propose to put a tax of 2d. per pound on the importation of potatoes, although it is disguised in the Order. The rate is to be 18s. 8d. per cwt. and those who work it out will find that the actual rate is 2d. per lb. from the 5th January to the 29th February. From the 1st March to the 31st March, it is to be at the rate of 9s. 4d, per cwt. or 1d. per lb., and from the 1st April, a very significant date which appears very approximately in these Orders, to the 1st June it is to be 4s. 8d. per cwt. or one-halfpenny per lb. The Minister told us that he had special difficulty with regard to potatoes. We do not know why these assessments are deemed to be appropriate in any case.
There are flowers such as carnations, pinks, heather, marguerites, mimosa, narcissi, Star of Bethlehem and violets. Why does the Minister not bring in a botanical catalogue and include all flowers? Why are such flowers as heather and carnations, grown under entirely dissimilar conditions, and narcissi and violets, assessed at 2d. a lb.? I imagine that flowers and stalks and leaves are all to be weighed together and a charge made upon the gross weight. Why is the period of the duration of the tax as long as the Minister has power to impose it, from 5th January to 11th December? It is some comfort to know that there will be an end to these Orders for a short time. The 11th December is the last date for the application of the tax, and we can hope for a merry Christmas if the taxes have been removed then once and for all.
We sympathise with the Minister in this matter. He is the victim as well as ourselves. He does not know what the effect of these Orders will be. He does not share our premonitions. We believe that the effect of the Orders will be universally bad. We think that this artificial method of stimulating production of vegetables and flowers can lead only to inefficiency at the cost to the consumer, for the consumer will certainly have to pay in all these cases. The man who buys a bunch of flowers, the woman who buys vegetables for the family, will have to pay an additional price. It will be the same in the case of fruit. The Minister cannot escape from the fact that the tax will mean an addition to the cost of living. He is imposing a tax upon food, solid and substantial. The tax will impose a heavier burden upon the housewife, and in the long run that is what matters. The housewife is complaining already that the cost of fruit and vegetables has gone up. In my home I get a good deal of instruction in these matters from my wife. The housewife knows that the cost of living has already gone up.
We are sorry for the Minister. We do like him. But he will go down in history as the author of a tax on nourishing and sustaining food; the author of a tax on beauty, on flowers that are beautiful in colour, and sweet in smell. He will be held responsible for having denied his country people of a great many of the joys of life, and especially that section of the people with whom he cannot be out of sympathy, the poorest of the poor, who will find it exceedingly difficult to spare from their slender resources the amounts that are demanded in this Schedule. These proposals may help the Treasury but the money can be ill spared by those who are earning low wages or are unemployed. The Minister should be here to-day dressed in a white sheet of repentance for having brought forward these proposals, but apparently he has left it behind him. We shall oppose the Bill when it is presented to the House, and we shall oppose these Orders, because we believe that they represent a mistaken policy.

11.30. a.m.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Although the hon. Member who has just spoken has expressed his intention to oppose these
Orders I want to say how much they have been appreciated by the producers of the articles referred to. Not only the producers, but I believe that amongst the consumers there is a great deal of appreciation for the effort which is being made to have these articles produced at home so that the consumer can obtain them fresh and of the best quality. I am sure that the Minister will be the last to object to reasonable criticism of a constructive nature. He has told us that he has made every inquiry within his power to arrive at dates which will he suitable to the industry. The only way in which we can ascertain whether the dates are suitable is by experience of the operation of the duty, and that, of course, none of us has yet. On behalf of the growers I would express grave doubts as to whether the dates are likely to give the best results. Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman, if the dates are proved to be unsuitable, to alter them without a great deal of difficulty and without having to come to the Rouse again? If that is not so, I would put one further question to him.
With regard to potatoes particularly, we believe that one of the dates is far too early to have a beneficial effect. The early crop, the importation of which would be prevented for a time, may be held up, and then come into this country to enter into severe competition with what are termed the "second earlies" or possibly the main crop. Does the Minister treat "second earlies" as "earlies" under the Order? Will the main crop come under the regulations that we discussed yesterday? Then of course there would be the assistance given to them by the 10 per cent., at any rate pending the inquiry which might possibly result in an increase of that amount. I would like to be clear as to whether the "second earlies" and the main crop come under the regulations which we discussed yesterday. I would also like to know whether in the opinion of the Minister and his advisers, if they do come within those regulations, that will be adequate to compensate for the early date mentioned in the Order. We think that date is too early to give full advantage to the potato-grower.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I do not criticise this Order in any harsh spirit,
and I do not intend to deal with it from the point of view of the growers of vegetables, or the producers of either main crop potatoes or the semi-early crop which comes from the Midlands and from up-country, but I think that some changes might be made. I think that the ordinary vegetable grower will have the advantage of the 10 per cent. duty with which we dealt yesterday. As far as the luxury trade is concerned, from what I can learn this Order has proved very efficient. I am not very interested in that except from the point of view of providing employment, but here I think the Minister has done a very good piece of work. I have no doubt that that is why the so-called Labour Members object to it—because it is bringing actual work and wages to people who were unemployed. As regards the luxury trade, however, I think there are one or two errors in the dates in this Order. There is a difference between early crop potatoes, grown in Sussex, for instance, and the early potatoes which are grown in the West Country, in Cornwall and the Scilly Isles. These come on to the market many weeks earlier and are a luxury. In a particular year when there is a shortage of potatoes they may take the place of the others, but they are not like the ordinary up-country early crop which is the natural result of the ordinary rotation. These early-grown potatoes from West Cornwall are quite different. They are purely luxury articles used by the big hotels and by comparatively well-to-do people though, no doubt, in a year or two when we get back to prosperity, we shall find artisans making a big demand for them as they used to do before we were cursed with a Socialist Government.
I would like the Minister to give careful attention to three points. First, there is the duty of 2s. 6d. per lb. on strawberries up to 31st M ay. I suppose that British strawberries grown out of doors will hardly be affected at all by that duty. The duty of 6d. per lb. from 1st to 15th June—not for the whole of June and subsequent periods, as the speaker for the Opposition seemed to think—may help the Tamar Valley growers and the growers of early luxury strawberries to a certain extent. Under present conditions in regard to the balance of trade I think the Minister
ought to look into those dates again. I have already sent him some evidence upon the point, and I need not weary the House with it, but I think that these particular dates require some slight alteration. There is also the matter of new potatoes. The dates for the duty proposed in the Order will not help luxury growers in the West Country very much. It may conceivably help the Channel Islands, but this is not a Measure solely for the promotion of the prosperity of the Channel Islands—which have been described as "the tax-dodgers' paradise." I am all in favour of helping the Dominions and giving the Channel Islands a reasonable chance, but I do not think that it is necessary to subsidise and encourage producers there at the expense of West Country growers who are doing something—thanks to the Ministry of Agriculture and the Cornish County Council—to capture the luxury trade in these articles.
The third point to which I direct the Minister's attention has reference to the duty on flowers. I believe that a duty of so much per lb. is probably the easy way of collecting the money, and I do not grumble at the Minister's action in this matter. It is far better to put on these duties quickly than to waste time in building up machinery. The right hon. Gentleman has done something in this matter and has provided a. good example to a very large number of Members of previous Governments. But this is a flat rate duty and it does nothing to encourage the production of high grade stock. We have gone very far in the West country to improve our standard of production and to have high-grade flowers properly packed and turned out in good condition such as are to be seen at the Royal Horticultural Society's exhibitions from time to time. But the producers who take this care do not get any more encouragement than if they simply slapped the whole lot into a box and sent it up in that way. Could the duties not be readjusted so that high-graded stock from abroad had to pay a higher duty and so as to give an extra protection to more efficient production at home? If that were done, then people would take trouble to bring their businesses up to date.
I would like the Minister in his reply to give us some approximate estimate of the amount of money which is going to be raised under this Order. That consideration is always of importance, and it is particularly important now when we have in this House a peculiarly inefficient Opposition which never goes into matters of finance. So inefficient have the Opposition become, that we require a subsidised Opposition as well, but. I am not going to develop that point, because it would hardly be in order. We should like to know, however, how much money is expected to come in from this Order so that we may have some proper estimation and understanding as to how far it is going to help the Government, both from the financial point of view and from the point of view of the development of trade.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I am rather pleased that this Order is before the House and that we have had an opportunity of hearing the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) upon it. There must be many Members of this Parliament who had not previously had the opportunity of listening to his melodious voice and who may be unaware that he was known in the last Parliament as "Tennyson's Brook." Certainly as regards the length of time occupied in talking there was no inefficiency on his part in the last Parliament although I am afraid that the substance in his speeches had no relation to the length of those orations. It may be that on horticultural or agricultural matters the present Opposition is not quite as efficient, if judged by the length of the speeches which they deliver, as the hon. Member for Torquay was for a period of two years, but we do claim that in dealing with these matters we come to the point as quickly as possible and deal with it.
The hon. Member suggests that the Opposition should oppose these Orders because they are likely to find work for people—a most curious argument. If he will read Conservative newspapers and acquaint himself with some of the facts. of the situation, his interventions may be more to the point. For instance, the "Daily Telegraph" of to-day says that these Orders, plus the Abnormal Importations Duty, plus the anticipated 10 per cent. tariff have already had effect in various parts of Europe, and,
instead of finding more work for our people there is a clear indication here to the contrary. I want the hon. Member for Torquay to tell all those people who cater for visitors at Torquay during the summer, some of whom may be Welsh miners, that the chances are that the number of visitors to Torquay in the coming summer will be fewer as a result of his support of Orders such as these. Here is a reference to the effect that these Orders are likely to have on a very great and important industry:
Disquieting reports which have been current in London coal circles for two days past received confirmation last night in official messages from Berlin.
These announce that Germany has followed the example of France and Italy in taking discriminatory and most severe measures of restricting the import of British coal.
The Hon. Member for Torquay will remember that some hon. Members who sit on the Opposition benches represent hundreds of thousands of mineworkers and their wives and families in this country. The report goes on:
Hamburg coal importers have been instructed by the Reich Coal Import Board that, as from Monday last, they may only import 140,000 tons per month of English coal, as against 200,000 tons per month during the preceding four months, and an average of 300.000 tons per month throughout last year.
This involves a, loss to Britain of 2,000,000 tons per annum in coal exports, equivalent to the employment of 8,000 miners all the year round.
The hon. Member for Torquay can now comfort himself in the knowledge that his support of the tariff proposals will put 8.000 miners out of work during this year.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May I remind the hon. Member that for years and years there have been special discriminatory Orders against our coal and other things going to foreign countries, and nothing has ever been done to stop that, but under yesterday's proposals we are for the first time being able to retaliate and to make agreements and get these duties taken off?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: If the hon. Member knew much more about the coal industry than he appears to do, he would know that no discriminatory tariffs have been levied against Great
Britain. Indeed, all hon. and right hon. Members must know that for generations we have depended very largely on our exports of coal to France, Germany, Italy, and other countries, and it is because of the dislocation in the trade of Europe and the world generally that our exports have been cut off here and there. Here is a further indication as to what the effect of the present Government's action is likely to be—more people out of work instead of more people put into work.
I should like to refer to the two Orders which are now before us. The right hon. Gentleman in his first few sentences indicated that the significance of these Orders did not rest in the duties already suggested but in the threat that he makes in regard to action in the future. Can he give us any indication as to what these further steps are likely to consist of, whether they are going to be more brutal and more effective than the present figures and dates? I should also like to know why, when dealing with mushrooms and flowers, the commencing date should be the 5th January and the concluding date the 11th December. Are we to take it from those two dates that the right hon. Gentleman intends to impose duties upon mushrooms of 8d. per lb. throughout 11½ months, but for Christmas week people will be able to have mushrooms and steak, or whatever they couple with their mushrooms, quite free from duty; and, if so, will he tell us why mushrooms are of greater value during Christmas week than during the other 51 week of the year? It would be interesting to know, because that applies not only to mushrooms but also to flowers. Will the right hon. Gentleman say why flowers have more value during the two Christmas weeks than during the other 11 months and two weeks of the year? What was the advice that he received from his advisers when he was fixing these dates?
Then again there is a duty of 2d. per lb. on six or eight noted categories of flowers, which include "Star of Bethlehem," but for other cut flowers 9d. per lb., and I want to ask whether that latter category will include such delicious blooms as sunflowers, because, if so, they will be almost £1 each; and will he tell us why the duty on carnations, for in-
stance, is identical with that upon marguerites? There seems to have been no discrimination in the real value or the price of the blooms, and I am rather surprised that his expert advisers have left not only the right hon. Gentleman but Members in all parts of the House in a state of confusion in this matter.
With regard to new potatoes, I notice that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), as usual, is watching the interests of the farmers and at the same time forgetting the interests of the consumers.

Sir J. LAMB: I did not say so.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: No, but it is always understood, when the hon. Member rises in his place, that he thinks of the few and forgets the many. He must know that there has been and still is a tremendous shortage of potatoes in this country. We have witnessed during the past few weeks what some people describe as a potato ramp, with growers withholding supplies, and prices soaring to a point where the average working-class wife has found it extremely difficult to purchase any potatoes at all. The hon. Gentleman is pleading with his right hon. Friend further to restrict imports of new potatoes during the early months so that persons who otherwise would be consuming these imported potatoes would be consuming old potatoes and not leaving the old potatoes for those who can afford to buy none better. If the right hon. Gentleman has any sort of sympathy with the great mass of consumers in this country, he will not be drawn by the hon. Member for Stone in the interest of the unscrupulous merchant who has been withholding stock so as to send up the price of potatoes to a figure much higher than the average working-class housewife can afford to pay. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he must know that it is perfectly true.
The only other commodity to which I wish to refer is tomatoes, which is in the second Order. All the Members sitting on the other side or below the Gangway have made great play with the wonderful amount of employment which will be created if a duty be imposed on imported tomatoes. I have been watching the price of imported tomatoes, and
the net result of the right hon. Gentleman's second Order will be that for the months of June and July the consumer of the imported tomato in this country will have to pay 2d. a pound more, and ld. a pound more for a further two months, but in no case will the duty increase the price of the imported tomato to the normal price of the English grown tomato. Therefore, it seems to me scarcely high enough to be protective, but just high enough to compel the poor, miserable wretch, who can afford to buy only the lowest price commodity, to pay even more for it in the future than in the past.
12 n.
I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman is one of those sympathetic souls in private life, and, after the Debate which took place here a few weeks ago, I did at least feel that he would have some human sympathy, and that he would have excluded this very well-known article of food, which is almost a necessity, from these Orders. After a few weeks' delay, not having included tomatoes in the first Order, the right hon. Gentleman proceeds, in the second Order, to impose this duty upon imported tomatoes. I should like to ask him two questions arising out of this subject. First of all, can he give us any idea what effect these Orders are going to have upon our export trade to the Canary Islands? We have access to the Canary Islands for our exports on similar terms to the mainland of Spain. We sell considerable numbers of diverse articles produced in this country, but if we are to discriminate against the Canary Islands, particularly with regard to tomatoes and new potatoes, as we are doing in these two Orders, will the right hon. Gentleman give us some indication of what the Canary Islands are contemplating with regard to retaliatory measures? It seems to me that these Orders will do two things. They will slightly increase the cost of certain commodities to the consumer. That is almost a certainty. They will not find more work for British workpeople. They will, however, tend so to disturb our relations with other countries, that the ultimate result will very likely be that fewer people will be at work than before the Orders were introduced. Although the right hon.
Gentleman has taken the first plunge, due to very unsound advice from some of his supporters who are more enthusiastic than they are reasonable, I want to ask him, almost to plead with him, to hesitate long and seriously before he contemplates a further Order which is bound to be as drastic in its effect, in a small way, as the first Order.

Mr. CHRISTIE: When the Minister was making his statement, I was struck by his remarks about his negotiations with the vine growers. He was careful to say that while they cannot immediately produce the additional grapes required as the result of the imposition of the duty, yet the encouragement he was giving them would cause them to feel justified in planting new vines to meet that demand. That seems to me a most reasonable method of conducting these negotiations. I should like to call his attention to the fact that if he were to adopt a. similar policy in giving the growers of soft fruit some idea of what his intention might be with regard to the treatment of fruit pulp, and of foreign canned fruit, he would give a great stimulus to the planting of soft fruit in this country, because I think it is so easily forgotten that you cannot suddenly produce a black currant bush or raspberry canes in full bearing. It is a question of two years in the one case and three years in the other, and if the right hon. Gentleman would give the growers some indication that it is the Government's intention to limit the introduction of foreign pulp, both in black currants and raspberries, I feel certain that the market gardening community would get to work and start planting further acreage. It is not too late now to put in either of these two crops.
Then, may I say one word about flowers? Surely everybody appreciates the great difficulty of taxing a commodity of this sort, because, unlike most imports, I suppose in nearly every case these flowers are consigned to commission salesmen, and nobody can say until the sale has actually taken place what their value is. But the present method of charging the duty on the weight, as has already been pointed out, has many serious drawbacks. I am told that in the case of tulips, owing to their light weight, the
duty will give very little relief to the growers in this country. That may possibly be because tulips are being forced abroad, and plants were started in growth before the duty comes on. What strikes me as being so illogical is that, whereas the duty on forced tulips, which are obviously a luxury, is a very light tax, when summer comes and gladiolus flowers come from Holland, owing to their being very heavy, they will pay a very heavy tax. That seems to be a most illogical proceeding because if gladioli bear a heavy tax in summer, how can you justify only a light tax on tulips, which are undoubtedly a luxury, in January?
I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will notice these things as they occur, and I feel certain that he will do his best to put them straight. May 1 suggest that it would even now be possible to consider this method of applying the duties? If these flowers are consigned to salesmen at Covent Garden, would it not be possible for the tax to be ad valorem and paid by the salesmen who actually effect the sales? If the right hon. Gentleman would only do that, he would satisfy all parties and would meet the points raised by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) that the higher the class and value of the flowers introduced, the higher the tax should be. 1 hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not think that I am in any way ungrateful for the advantages which he has conferred upon the horticultural industry. He has done exceedingly well, if I may say so, but I am certain that he will be the last person to think that his scheme is absolutely perfect. I am sure, therefore, that he will watch its working during the present year in order to be able to make it even more efficient.

Mr. TINKER: The House has decided that this taxation shall go on, and these Orders are only carrying that decision out; I am not complaining of that. Nor am I complaining of hon. Members on the other side praising the Minister for what he has done in looking after the interests of their constituents. They represent agricultural constituencies, and the object of these Orders is to help them. No one can complain of that. When a mining question comes up, it is dear to me, and I do all that I can to improve the condition of the miners. That is natural, but we have to have regard to the consumers
and try and prevent undue pressure being put on them. A duty is being put on potatoes. The laws of supply and demand give the producers great power, and, if prices become excessive, has the Minister any power to restrict them? At one time potatoes sold at £5 a ton—a low price; the price has now gone up to from £8 to £10 a ton. If it goes up to £12 or £13, has the Minister any power to call a halt? Is it fair to allow those who have control of potatoes to go to any price owing to the restriction on foreign potatoes? That would be unfair to the consumer, and would kill the intention that is behind the duty. I ask the Minister to give us some assurance that the House of Commons will not lose altogether the control of prices.
The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) derided us on our lack of opposition. I hope that we shall not fall into the same vein of humour into which he fell in the last Parliament. I want our obstruction to be constructive. With all due deference to him, he in the last Parliament seemed to persist in trying to keep us as long as he could, and, if he had known the feelings that we had towards him, he would not have carried on as long as he did. I do not want to make myself what I thought about him in the last Parliament.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: While being grateful to the Minister on behalf of my constituents, I would like to ask him whether he could in the future reconsider the date as regards broccoli. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are developing the broccoli industry, and these duties will undoubtedly help, but where we fail at the present, and where these duties will not help sufficiently, is in the production of early small broccoli. The producers have to buy the seed of the early small broccoli from France, and, if the right hon. Gentleman could consider altering the date in order to achieve the object which I think would be achieved by such an alteration, namely, the fostering of the early broccoli, he would do much to complete the work which is going to help agriculture considerably.
The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) expressed some concern that the miners would be unable to spend money this year in the holiday resort of
Torquay; I presume that he also doubted whether Welsh miners would be able to spend money on resorts such as exist in my constituency, like Margate and Ramsgate. I think, however, that, thanks to this Act and thanks also to the policy of the Government, the miners will be able to spend more money this year in holiday resorts. I would only remind the hon. Gentleman that if they have been unable in the past, and are at present unable to spend money, it has not been because of Orders such as this, but owing to the bad leadership of the miners, which has led them and their industry to such depths of depression.
I am not frightened that these Orders will not help the grower, nor am I frightened that the consumer will have much complaint, or that the landlady who has to buy her produce will have much complaint because of it. As part of the policy of the Government, which will fit in with the industrial and agricultural system of this country, it will play a part in a general revival which will help our holiday resorts. There is scarcely a member of the Front Opposition Bench, from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader downwards, whom I have not seen paddling very happily on Margate beach during the summer, and I think that they will be able to paddle there this year with greater contentment than ever in the past.

Mr. PRICE: I do not look upon these Orders as likely to make any provision for the improvement of British agriculture. They are a definite indication of the full taxation policy which has been pursued by the Government ever since it took office. Is any Member who faces the fundamental facts of the situation prepared for a moment seriously to suggest that some of these duties, which are imposed on the staple foods of the common working people, though they have been suggested by the Minister as luxuries, are not a direct attempt to enforce tariffs on important everyday foods of the working-classes? Let us examine these things from the point of view of reason and common sense. If the farming class in this House are anxious and willing to bring forward a policy of agricultural reform and reorganisation, they can assure themselves of getting the full support of Members on the Opposition benches. While the Government are
placing what hon. Members have readily admitted is a tax on certain articles of food which are common everyday purchases of the ordinary working family, there is no guarantee that the British farmer can supply the need.
What is the position with regard to tomatoes and potatoes? In the last few weeks there has been a tremendous rise in the price of potatoes, and the position in some parts of the north of England has been such that potatoes have hardly been purchasable at all. They are getting to such a price that the working-class cannot afford to buy them. Why put a duty on new potatoes coming in at this time of the year? New potatoes may not be within the reach of the pockets of ordinary working men and women, but they are within reach of a certain proportion of the population, and if they buy new potatoes then it means that the old potatoes are available for people with low wages. I regard this Order as levying a direct tax on many articles of food of the common working people. I agree, as one of the speakers from this side said, that farmers are entitled to come to this House with reasonable proposals for their industry, which we recognise need reorganisation; but if this is to be the form, then agricultural reorganisation is being carried out at the expense of the stomachs of the poor people of this country, and that is a wrong policy. Some of the dates at which these import duties on foreign vegetables are to operate are ridiculous; and I notice also that in the case of flowers the duty charged is so much per pound, and would like to know if that charge falls on the stalks as well.
I suggest very seriously that a large number of these duties are not justified, will not help British agriculture, but will add to the already distressed conditions prevailing among some of our working people. The farming element in this country ought to take advice from some of their own experts. I have been receiving letters, unsolicited, from farmers in the West. Riding who disagree entirely with the proposals of the Government for the reorganisation of British agriculture, and put forward suggestions of what ought to be done. Some say that the land ought to be free of the heavy rents which have to be paid to landlords, and also that farmers ought to
be relieved of the burden of the tithe rents. That is the opinion of the farmers—these are not letters from colliers. I say this procedure has been framed with the definite intention of putting tariffs on the foodstuffs of the common working people; and yesterday's Debate makes it more certain than ever that that is the solid intention of the Government. We of this party oppose that policy as a means of reorganising British industry. When the Government bring in a Measure the fundamental basis of which is the reorganisation of British agriculture on sound and comprehensive lines we shall be prepared to give it full consideration.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) is well able to look after himself, but at the same time he has exhausted his right to speak in this Debate. He was told in the last Parliament that his nickname was "Tennyson's Brook." His nickname in the present House of Commons will be worthier than that. [Interruption.] The hon. Member opposite also has a nickname, a very honourable one, or I should not mention it. It is a nickname generally given to those who accept direct orders from others who can give them instructions.

Mr. BATEY: Tell us what it is.

Sir B. FALLE: No, I am not going to do that. I will go back to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay. He may know a. great deal about large farms, but he does not know very much about small holdings and small farms of some 20 or 25 acres such as are found in the Channel Islands. Perhaps he will do me the honour to consult with me on this point, or he might do even better by going to the Library and consulting some of the interesting documents to be found there. When he accused the islanders of being tax dodgers he was making an absurd statement. Anyone who lives in the islands on an income derived from London will find that that income has been subjected to Income Tax, but, with few exceptions, the people of the islands are poor, 'and with incomes outside the range of the Income Tax of this country.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I am very sorry if I have offended my hon. Friend, which is the last thing I wish to do. I was not referring to the general run of the
islanders, who I know, are smallholders, but to the fact that the islands are very fortunate in having attracted a considerable number of rather well-to-do people. From the point of view of taxation those people find their position in the Channel Islands to be much more favourable than if they remained in this country.

Sir B. FALLE: Those are British subjects who have migrated from the main land, and it is up to this House to catch them. It surely cannot be suggested that the islanders should penalise them because they had come to the islands to spend money. If the people on the mainland think that those particular persons are dodging taxes, then let them outlaw them! The islands cost this country nothing, and why should they contribute towards the Income Tax? The people there buy all that they do buy from this country—every single thing. I do not believe they purchase any quantity of foreign goods at all—and they will purchase less than ever of them under this new tariff system. During the War, although they were not obliged to do so, they gave 17½ per cent. of their population to the defence of this country, and they received no thanks whatever from this House. Every little State in the world which sent troops was thanked by name, but the islands, who gave of their best, and are still suffering in cones quence—

Mr. SPEAKER: We had better now return to the Order which is before the House.

Sir B. FALLE: To go back to the produce of the islands. Their exports of new potatoes begin in May and go on in June and into July. The price received is usually very low. If the islander and his womenfolk did not work hard it would be quite impossible to pay the enormous rent which land fetches in the islands. When new potatoes come in they have the effect of reducing the price of old because there are some people who prefer a new potato to an old one, although I contend that an old potato is infinitely better than an early new one. The hon. Member opposite has stated that if you put a tax on any food the immediate result is to raise the price of that food to the poor people. In this connection, I would like to state what occurred within my own knowledge.
Some time ago I had the pleasure of serving under one of our greatest proconsuls whose name is a household word in this country. There was within his State an important city where foodstuffs were subject to a very heavy octroi duty which weighed very heavily on the population, and the pro-consul determined that, for the benefit of the poor people of that State, he would remove that duty. It was removed, and its removal was followed by the extraordinary result that the price of foodstuffs immediately rose by 25 and 40 per cent. I do not propose to attempt to explain to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) why it was that that rise in the price of foodstuffs took place, but nevertheless it is a fact which he can verify for himself if he cares to do so.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: As the hon. Baronet has made a definite statement that the removal of an octroi duty was followed by an increase in price, I think he ought to give the name of the city to which lie has referred and also the details.

Sir B. FALLE: If the hon. Gentleman opposite wishes to know all that there is to be known about this matter it is open to him to investigate it, but what I have stated is a fact and after all
Facts are chiels that winna ding.
Hon. Members opposite hold that import duties must necessarily increase the price of food, but perhaps after what I have stated they will modify their opinion, because there are two sides to a question. There is the case of the Canary Islands, where labour is exceedingly cheap, and rents and rates are very low compared with the rent and rates of producers in this country and in the Norman Islands, with the result that competition with the produce raised in this country is very unfair. That is why I am glad that there is now some prospect of us getting a little revenue from this source.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I would like to answer one or two of the points which have been raised. Hon. Members no doubt feel that while these duties may be satisfactory in certain cases, there are circumstances in which they will have to be considered in the light of experience. An Order made at short notice
may be found to need some revision after a little experience. We had a discussion in regard to soft fruit in a previous Debate, and I am able to say that fruit pulp, under the new proposals, will also be dealt with. The same applies to potatoes. At first, we were dealing with new potatoes of the early variety. I am in-dined to think that what has been said about the shortage of this crop has been somewhat exaggerated, because, judging from the information which is at the disposal of my Department, I do not think there is likely to be any serious shortage. The main crop of potatoes will come under the 10 per cent, duty. I

have been asked why the date has been fixed for the end of December. That has been done because the Act expires on that date. I think that is all I need to say on this occasion. There may be deficiencies in regard to the dates and other details, but on the operation of the main Act a case can be put before the Committee, and if satisfactory evidence is forthcoming the dates can be reconsidered. I hope the House will now give its approval to these Orders.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 31.

Division No. 47].
AYES.
[12.35 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Mabane, William


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Dickie, John P.
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Donner, P. W.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Alexander, Sir William
Duggan, Hubert John
MeCorquodale, M. S.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Duncan. James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
McKie, John Hamilton


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd,)
Dunglass, Lord
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
McLean, Major Alan


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. 
Elmley, Viscount
Maclean, Rt. Hn, Sir D. (Corn'll N.)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederik Wolfe
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Maitland, Adam


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fermoy, Lord
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Flanagan, W. H.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Martin, Thomas B.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Fuller, Captain A. E. G.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Bernays, Robert
Ganzoni, Sir John
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Millar, Sir James Duncan


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mills, Sir Frederick


Blindell, James
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Boulton, W. W.
Goff, Sir Park
Morrison, William Shephard


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Goldie, Noel B.
Moss, Captain H. J.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E, W.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Munro, Patrick


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Graves, Marjorie
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Grimston, R. V.
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.


Brown, Brig. Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Normand, Wilfrid Guild


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hales, Harold K.
Nunn, William


Burghley, Lord
Hanley, Dennis A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Burnett, John George
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

Patrick, Colin M.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pearson, William G.


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Petherick, M.


Carver, Major William H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hillman, Dr. George B.
Pickering. Ernest H.


Castle Stewart, Earl
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Pike, Cecil F.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Potter, John


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hare-Belisha, Leslie
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hornby, Frank
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Horsbrugh, Florence
Pybus, Percy John


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Chotzner, Alfred James
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ramsden, E.


Christie, James Archibald
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Rankin, Robert


Clarry, Reginald George
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Clayton, Dr. George C.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Conant, R. J. E.
Jamieson, Douglas
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Cook, Thomas A.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Cooke, James D.
Ker, J. Campbell
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip


Cooper, A. Duff
Knight, Holford
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Copeland, Ida
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Leckie, J. A.
Robinson, John Roland



Leech. Dr. J. W.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Liddall, Walter S.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter



Lindsay, Noel Ker
Runge, Norah Cecil


Cross, R. H.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside)


Crossley, A. C.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lymington, Viscount
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Scone, Lord
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Selley, Harry R.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Summersby, Charles H.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Sutcliffe, Harold
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Tate, Mavis Constance
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Templeton, William P.
Womersley, Walter James


Smiles. Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Worthington. Dr. John V.


Smithers, Waldron
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)



Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Ward, Lt -Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Soper, Richard
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Sir George Penny and Captain Austin Hudson.


Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)



Southby. Commander Archibald R. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.



NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Briant, Frank
Hicks, Ernest George
Price, Gabriel


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hirst, George Henry
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Holdsworth, Herbert
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jenkins, Sir William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Edwards. Charles
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George



George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lawson, John James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Logan, David Gilbert
Mr. John and Mr. Gordon Macdonald.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lunn, William



Grundy, Thomas W.
McEntee, Valentine L.

Resolved,
That the Order, dated the 24th day of December, 1931, made by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under the Horticultural Products (Emergency Customs Duties) Act, 1931, a copy of which was presented to this House on the 2nd day of February, 1932, be approved.

Motion made, arid Question put,

"That the Order, dated the 21st day of January, 1932, made by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under the Horticultural Products (Emergency Customs Duties) Act, 1931, a copy of which was presented to this House on the 2nd day of February, 1932, be approved."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

The House divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 33.

Division No. 48.]
AYES
[12.44 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chalmers, John Rutherford
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Goff, Sir Park


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Chotzner, Alfred James
Goldie, Noel B.


Alexander, Sir William
Christie, James Archibald
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Allen, Sir. J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Clarry, Reginald George
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Clayton, Dr. George C.
Graves, Marjorie


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Conant. R. J. E.
Grimston, R. V.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Cook, Thomas A.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Cooke, James D.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cooper, A. Duff
Hales, Harold K.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Copeland, Ida
Hanley, Dennis A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L.(Chelmsford)


Beaumont. M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Cross, R. H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Crossley, A. C.
Hillman, Dr. George B.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)


Blindell, James
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Boulton, W. W.
Dickie, John P.
Hornby, Frank


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Donner, P. W.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E W.
Duckworth, George A. V.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Duggan, Hubert John
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Duncan, James A. L.(Kensington,N.)
Hume. Sir George Hopwood


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Dunglass, Lord
Hunter. Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Elmley, Viscount
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Jamleson. Douglas


Burghley, Lord
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Burnett, John George
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Ker, J. Campbell


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Fermoy, Lord
Knight, Holford


Carver, Major William H.
Flanagan, W. H.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Castlereagh, Viscount
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Castle Stewart, Earl
Fuller, Captain A. E. G.
Leckie, J. A.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Liddall, Walter S.


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Palmer, Francis Noel
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Loder, Captain J. de Vera
Patrick, Colin M.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Pearson, William G.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Lymington, Viscount
Petherick, M.
Smithers, Waldron


MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Somervell, Donald Bradley


MacAndrew, Capt. J.O (Ayr)
Pickering, Ernest H.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Pike, Cecil F.
Soper, Richard


McKie. John Hamilton
Potter, John
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


McLean, Major Alan
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)
Pybus, Percy John
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Ramsden, E.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Maitland, Adam
Rankin, Robert
Tate, Mavis Constance


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Templeton, William P.


Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Martin, Thomas B.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Merriman, Sr F. Boyd
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Millar, Sir James Duncan
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Mills, Sir Frederick
Robinson, John Roland
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Morrison, William Shephard
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Moss, Captain H. J.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Wells, Sydney Richard


Muirhead, Major A. J.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Munro, Patrick
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Womersley, Walter James


Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Nicholson. Godfrey (Morpeth)
Scone, Lord



Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Selley, Harry R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Nunn, William
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Sir George Penny and Sir M. McKenzie Wood.


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)



NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
McEntee, Valentine L.


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hicks, Ernest George
Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)


Briant, Frank
Hirst, George Henry
Parkinson, John Allen


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Holdsworth, Herbert
Price, Gabriel


Daggar, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Logan, David Gilbert



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, Thomas W.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. John.


Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Resolved,
That the Order, dated the 21st day of January, 1932, made by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under the Horticultural Products (Emergency Customs Duties) Act, 1931, a copy of which was presented to this House on the 2nd day of February, 1932, he approved.

Orders of the Day — MERCHANT SHIPPING (SAFETY AND LOAD LINE CONVENTIONS) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. HoreBelisha): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The House will see from the Title of the Bill that an International Convention
for the Safety of Life at Sea was signed on 31st May, 1929, by all the principal maritime Powers. An International Load Line Convention was similarly signed on 5th July, 1930, and it is for the purpose of giving effect to those two Conventions that this Bill has been introduced. It has twice passed another place, on the last occasion, I am glad to say, without any Amendment and with complete agreement with the exception of a small drafting change. The very title of these Conventions, I think, is sufficient to commend them to the good will of the House. I think they are universally desired, and, if any exception has been taken to them at all, it has been in regard to one or two detailed points which I shall mention. Hon. Members will find it to be to their great convenience that the two Conventions are set out verbatim in the Schedules to the Bill. The first Schedule in relation to safety at sea is to be found on page 54, and the other on page 138,
so the House can easily become acquainted with the exact technical particulars of these agreements. When they have been ratified—and we now seek the permission of the House to ratify them—the standards of safety of life will be uniform throughout maritime countries, they will be very much higher than they ever were, better life-saving provisions will be enforced. There will be improved arrangements for listening to distress signals and more ships will be fitted with wireless. As to the Load Line Convention, a uniform system will be established, so that we shall have many more countries acting in conformity with our practice heretofore. With regard to those two principles, I do not think there can be any objection.
There have, however, been two criticisms raised against the Bill. The first relates to helm orders dealt with in Clause 29. Everybody knows that in Great Britain we give helm orders in the indirect fashion. When we wish to go to the right, we say "left," and when we wish to go to the left, we say "right." In other words, the order "starboard" means that the ship must turn to port and vice versa. This method has no basis in logic, but it has a very firm basis in custom and tradition, and one may respect the reluctance with which the change will be accepted by many accustomed to the old ways. But this change in helm orders, which, after all, is a logical change, was the price that we had to pay for this Convention. We were the prime movers in trying to obtain a uniform standard of safety of life at sea, and it was the universal and unanimous desire of the Conference that all ships should be put upon the direct method in every country throughout the world. Had we maintained our objection to that course, this Convention would not be before the House to-day. We had to sacrifice that point, and while, as I say, one understands and appreciates the feeling of a great many pilots and masters, the return which we have for making this concession is so considerable that I hope the House will agree with it.
I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) thinks that this matter ought to be referred to a free vote of the House. I agree that that procedure is fashionable, but it will not do here
for this reason, that the Convention has been accepted by all the maritime Powers as a whole. We stated our case at the Conference which was held, and we were overborne by all the other participants, and if, as I have said, we had stood out, there could have been no Convention, and you would not have had improvement in life-saving practice, or in wireless, or in any of the other matters in which we were interested. And so we had to give way on this point. I would point out to the House that if other countries have been able to change their practice in this respect without disaster, for, after all, it is only a logical change, it is going in the long run to be no more difficult for British seamen than it is now difficult for British chauffeurs who, when they go over to Paris, have to drive on the right side of the road instead of on the left. The natural reaction to the mind is to give the helm order in the direction in which you wish to go and, if anyone suggests that the British seaman is not capable of mastering that change, it places the intelligence of the British seaman at a much lower level than it deserves. That was the first of the criticisms.
1.0 p.m.
The other point of criticism arose on Clause 33, and that point of criticism the Government have very largely met. It was asked by the shipowners that the Board of Trade, when the Convention is ratified, should forgo its historic duty of making regulations. As everyone is aware, the Board of Trade has been for several generations charged with the duty of making regulations about the safety of ships, and it is necessary that somebody should enjoy a flexible power in that regard. The shipowners thought that we ought to forgo that power. Naturally we were not prepared to do that, because the power has been exercised with complete satisfaction and good will and, with it, we have remained the country enjoying the best maritime practice in the world. If anybody object to any rule or regulation made by the Board of Trade, there is an appeal to a court of survey. During the whole of the time that the Board of Trade has enjoyed its power of making regulations, there has only been one single appeal. The Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee is always consulted before the Board of
Trade makes any regulation at all, and therefore, it seems to me that the objection now taken is rather fastidious.
However, the Board of Trade and the Government have largely met the desires of those shipowners who raised this point by the present wording of the Clause, from which it will be seen that any rule or regulation
made after the passing of this Act and in force at the commencement of this part of this Act, contains, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, a requirement which—

(a) is at variance with any specific requirement of the Safety Convention; and
(b) was not contained in the regulations or rules in force at the passing of this Act;
the regulation or rule, as the case may be, shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after the commencement of this Part of this Act.
I do not think that any reasonably minded person could expect us to go further. If we were to lay all our rules and regulations made under Statute before the House, all those rules which are at present in existence, it would be competent for one branch of the legislature to deem what should be the law. We could not put all this concentrated practice into such peril and jeopardy.
I have candidly explained to the House the objections to this Bill, and they are two technical objections, two committee points. The Conventions await the ratification of this country. Several other countries have ratified, and, of course, we, being the leading maritime Power, ought not to withhold our ratification longer than is necessary. Indeed, we would not have withheld it but for the exigencies of public business. On two occasions the Bill has passed through another place, and this time, as I have said, without amendment, and as it is for the greater benefit of all who go to sea, I have no doubt that the House will give it a Second Reading to-day. The practice, when these Conventions are ratified, will be for the first time uniform throughout the world, and there will be greater protection for life and cargo.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: In a few sentences I will take the very unusual course of supporting the Government. I speak on behalf of the party with which I am connected, and I want to give our blessing to this Measure. We are not without knowledge that there are some
criticisms of some of its provisions. But that is always the case. It is a very necessary Bill and, of course, it is a nonparty Measure as well. I thought that the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary would have pointed out that this Convention is to come into operation in; July of this year, and on that score alone it is very necessary that the Bill should pass through all its stages as soon as possible, because there will be, I understand, several administrative points to be dealt with before that date. As a Labour party, we are naturally very concerned with the safety of the men who form the crews at sea. I have tried to find out what improvement has already been made in that direction, and if the House will bear with me I will give some figures to show the tremendous advance which has already taken place in regard to the safety of crews manning our British ships. From 1871 to 1875 there was an average of 1,943 men lost, from 1891 to 1895, 1,356, and in the five years 1921 to 1925 the figure was reduced to 287. That is a very remarkable improvement, and if we can do anything further to help the men who form the crews to make their lives safer still Parliament ought to do so at once. I was a coalminer for some years and I know what calamities have befallen some colliery districts. There was a time when it was thought that fate determined that we should have an explosion every now and then, and hundreds of our people have been killed, but by means of safety laws and regulations those terrible explosions, I am happy to say, are almost becoming things of the past. I can see no reason why in view of the constant improvements in our factory and mining laws that the same sentiment should not be brought to bear upon the conditions affecting the lives of the men at sea.
It is said that we shall have to give up some of our practices at sea by adopting this Convention. I have taken some interest in international conventions. I was at Geneva, officially connected with the International Labour Organisation, in 1924, and it was made clear to me then that every country which proposes to adopt an international convention must give up something. There is no other way out. At the conference which is now proceeding on the question of disarmament we shall see the same principle of
compromise adopted. I have not travelled very much on ships, because I am a very poor sailor, but I do appreciate the importance of all possible steps being taken to ensure safety at sea. The provisions of the Convention relating to wireless telegraphy is very important. When you make the life of the crew safe, you make the ship and its cargo safe too, because a ship can only be safe so long as it is manned properly. We on this side of the House give our hearty blessing to the Bill, and we trust that it will he passed into law without delay.

Sir JOHN SANDEMAN ALLEN: As the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has given his reasons for speaking, I will mention mine. I am not a shipowner but an underwriter. All my life I have been very closely connected with shipping, and particularly with international conventions and agreements for the last 30 years or so. Therefore, the House will perhaps allow me to say a few words on this subject. I happen at the same time to be hon. treasurer of the Mercantile Marine Service Association and representative of the Merchant Service Guild, who speak for a large body of navigating officers of the British mercantile marine. It may be difficult to speak from the point of view of two sides, but the matter is so important that I desire to express it in a few words. We have listened with much interest to the unfolding of the Bill in the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. He has made the real point very forcibly. The hon. Member for Westhoughton has also clearly pointed out the advantages which have been brought about through the conduct of the Board of Trade in the last century.
Some of us can remember the days when coffin ships were spoken of. We remember the days of the Plimsoll agitation, and we heard much in those days about wicked shipowners, just as we hear to-day about wicked industrialists. Free trade was then in full swing. Everything now is changed, except in the imagination of certain politicians and certain agitators, from what it was in the past. We have good ships and good shipowners. We have excellent seamen, and we have accommodation second to none in the world. Of the officers navigating the ships we
need scarcely speak, because they have proved their value times without number. We have had, however, to face many years of difficulties not merely in shipping but in industry generally. We have taken the lead in making conditions at sea satisfactory. Certainly the Board of Trade have taken a very strong and a very proper lead in insisting upon regulations for safety at sea, not merely, first and primarily, in the interests of life at sea, but also in the interests of our trade generally. They took that stand and they have brought things up to a very high standard. In recent. years they have had the full and hearty co-operation of the shipowners in all these matters, and therefore the standard of British shipping and British navigation in regard to safety is the highest in the world.
When we have a high standard we have to pay for it, so long as other nations have not that standard, and we have had to face very difficult international competition. We have seen foreign ships carrying cargoes of grain, timber and so on to an extent which British regulations would not allow British ships to carry. We have seen foreign ships carrying these cargoes, and when they have got rid of the offending quantity they have come to British ports with the rest. Foreign ships do not require the same manning and the same construction and so can be handled more cheaply. We have, therefore, suffered from this foreign competition, which has become very serious. But at the same time there has been a growth in the minds of foreign nations as to their responsibility in regard to safety of shipping at sea, and by degrees the difference between our standard and theirs has become less. We have been negotiating steadily for many years, and we have gradually arrived at a uniformity of practice which is essential in the general interests of an industry which is international in its fullest sense. The conventions which are embodied in the Bill, although they are primarily the work of the Government and shipowners are the outcome of many years study, and the collaboration of vast experience.
I think it well to mention some of these matters. These Conventions deal with the construction and stability of
ships, with lifeboats, life-saving apliances, boat crews essential for the purpose of life saving, etc., and, what is of great importance, the load-line regulations, as well as navigation. We have for the first time in sight an international standard, a uniform standard both as to construction of ships, and stability and safety at sea in the case of danger. We must realise the immense advantage that that is going to be. These advantages are so great, in the. opinion of those who have to do with the shipping and trade of this country, that we consider they are paramount in any discussion at the present time. The Parliamentary Secretary has dealt with two points as to which exception can be taken. I am glad he mentioned them and that he was so frank about it. My own view is that, from the outset, the Board of Trade if it is to justify its position as to the one must give up its position as to the other. They cannot stand on both sides at the same time. It is argued that if we do not give way in regard to the helm orders we shall lose the Convention.
The argument which the Board of Trade make as to maintaining their ancient regulations, which they admit do not in any material respect go counter to the principles and the standards of safety in the Convention, is that they do not wish to interfere with them, and they claim the right to hold to these even if they lose the full benefit of the Convention. That may be quite harmless, but does it not open the door to regulations which may be unsatisfactory and dangerous. If we are going to sacrifice so much for this great advantage questions of amour propre are very small in comparison to the invaluable measure of reform and agreement which can be secured. Therefore, I hope the Board of Trade will not hold tight to old regulations, splendid in their time, if they are going to injure the prospect of obtaining uniformity which is so desirable in the interests of life and property and trade at sea.
The other point, a matter of vital principle, is one Committee can be easily thrashed out in Committee upstairs. It would be a great mistake to oppose the Bill on Second Reading because of the helm orders. We have a deep feeling of national sentiment in this matter. I for one plead guilty. I do not know whether
other hon. Members have expressed themselves forcibly and perhaps irresponsibly on platforms, but I can well remember, not very long ago, speaking very strongly what I felt, that we are the great maritime nation of the world, the cradle of the merchant service, with the traditions of the sea in our blood, why should we give up our practice at the bidding of any foreign nation? That is a natural and proper sentiment which undoubtedly underlies our feelings in this connection. It has been suggested, and indeed pointed out, that a change of this kind involves a radical change in the whole method of steering a ship, a complete reversal of the previous training and ideas of the navigating officers in our merchant service. That at all times is awkward, but I maintain that the spirit and character of the British nation, and especially of our seafaring men, is such that they are quite as capable of adapting themselves to changes as anyone else.
It may be said that at a critical moment the instinct of years might assert itself and that a wrong order might be given which would seriously endanger life and property at sea. The answer to that is very clear. It is this. The difficulties of the present system are that we are navigating not merely in our own waters but in other waters, in which other people adopt exactly the opposite system. Our ships are taken possession of in foreign waters by foreign pilots, bred in the other system, while foreign ships in British waters are taken in charge by British pilots bred in the British system. You must have constant and increasing danger of accidents in narrow waters through misunderstandings and, therefore, I submit that. my friends the navigating officers must realise that there are two sides to this question. National sentiment is strong, and while we are prepared to admit the necessity for co-operation and agreement yet at the bottom of our hearts we shall still hold that there is no country like our own and no ideas so valuable as those to which we have been bred. But sentiment must not stand in the way of reform. This is a practical question. The point upon which I want to insist is this, that great as the difficulties and dangers may be in certain respects they also exist in other respects in the present system. We have to give
up old practices which may involve for the time being a certain amount of danger in exchange for a practice which will, once it is adopted, be uniform and universal and which will remove dangers which at present exist.
What do we gain by the exchange We get a consistent and uniform system of the high British standard for which we have been fighting for years past, and which we are glad to see is being universally accepted as the proper standard to be adopted. I hope the House will realise that it is not a mere question of one particular point, however important. it may be and which, I have no doubt, will be fully considered in Committee. Let us realise that if we sacrifice the great gain of this Convention and all the work that has been put into it for some years past for any one point it would be a fatal move on our part. I am sure that the House, realising the vast importance of dealing with this matter at once, will decide to pass this Bill and adopt these Conventions. If we can settle the points in dispute so much the better, and I still hope we can, but at all costs these Conventions must be ratified. Therefore I feel sure the House will say that the Bill must be passed a Second time and go upstairs to a Committee at once so that the splendid work of the Board of Trade and others may be at the service of this nation and other nations of the world at the earliest possible moment.

Sir ROBERT ASKE: It is a somewhat interesting commentary upon our system of legislation that whereas the Canadian Parliament has adopted this great Convention by an Act of Parliament which only occupies four pages our own Government have found it necessary to have a Bill of 53 pages to carry out precisely the same effect. It is astonishing how many words are necessary to say so little. The point to which I desire to draw the attention of the House is the second matter referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary, upon which I have been invited to lay the views of the representatives of the shipping industry of this country. They regard it as a matter of vital importance. I am told also that the seamen's union concur in the views which I am about to put forward. The position briefly is this: that on the Con-
vention coming into operation the Board of Trade are empowered to make regulations to implement a very sound and necessary provision.
That is as far as the Canadian Parliament goes. But this Bill proposes to go very much further and to confer very much wider powers upon the Department. It proposes that the Department shall not merely have power to bring in regulations to carry out or implement the Conventions, but also shall have power to prepare regulations at variance with the Conventions. If the regulations which they make, although varying from the Conventions, embody merely matters which have existed in regulations in force at the time of the passing of the Act, then the Department may have the power to enforce those regulations without this House having any power at all to veto those regulations. It will be observed that variations may be of two kinds. First of all a variation may be a variation which cuts down or limits the provisions of the Conventions. To that extent it will, of course, be a breach of the Conventions, and if our Government took that course other nations obviously would by no means be reluctant not merely to follow suit, but also to make wider and wider gaps in the Conventions themselves. Therefore one must assume that the Department have in view not matters of that kind, but regulations which would impose additional obligations upon ships beyond those contained in the Conventions. That. is a serious matter.
All previous speakers have laid great stress upon the cardinal principle of uniformity. Any alteration of that kind would cut deep at the principle of uniformity. The real importance of the point is this: The Board of Trade at the present time have power to make regulations upon these matters, but such regulations as they make have effect. not merely upon British ships but also upon foreign ships using the ports of this country. In other words, in all regulations made there is absolute equality of treatment in British ports as between the British ship and the foreign ship. To use a popular phrase, there is equality of sacrifice. But that is no longer to be the case if these Conventions are adopted. The Minister referred to this as a technical matter. So far from it being technical, an alteration of this kind would for the first time impose discrimination
against British ships in favour of foreign ships in our own ports. By the adoption of this Convention we give up once for all during the tenure of the Convention our right to impose obligations upon foreign ships beyond those within the four corners of the Convention. Therefore any regulations which the Board of Trade make under Clause 35 are regulations which would affect British ships alone. That is to introduce into our system not a technical matter at all but a matter of great importance.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: All foreign Powers will do exactly the same.

1.30 p.m.

Sir R. ASKE: But no foreign Power is seeking that right. These Conventions have been brought into force already in some of our Dominions and by some foreign countries, but they are discrimination not seeking anything of that kind. But surely it is qnite immaterial as to what foreign Powers may do. We do not wish to introduce a system of aggression with regard to foreign countries in shipping, or to have foreign shipping countries pursuing principles of aggression against us. We have always had equality of treatment in our own ports, and the shipping community of this country invites the House not readily to relinquish that principle. As a representative of a shipbuilding area, where there is the deepest depression and distress, where 70 per cent. of the shipyard workers are unemployed and with no prospect of work, I view with the gravest apprehension any measures which might introduce discrimination against British shipping. It is not time at all to begin matters of this kind, at all events without the most serious consideration.
So far as safety may be concerned, if any measures are necessary for the safety of passengers and crews of ships, no one in this House would wish that they should not be introduced, but up to the present, in the discussions in another place, no suggestions have been made to indicate that the uniform regulations in the Conventions are not adequate. If it is the case that the regulations contained in the Conventions are not adequate, surely it is necessary that full details of the points on which they are not adequate should be laid before the Rouse in order that the House may decide whether to adopt the Conventions at all. But no suggestions of that kind were made; no sugges-
tions were made as to what specific regulations the Department would wish to put into force. It may be that the Department has not any specific ideas on the point.
The power of the Board of Trade to make regulations of this kind has been in existence since 1854, and regulations have been made from time to time during that period. There is an incongruous mass of regulations existing now. A great body of these regulations necessarily goes by the board under the provisions of this Convention, but many of the rest, in view of the great changes in ship construction and safety devices, have become obsolete. A number of others may be inconsistent with these regulations. But no one in this House knows what regulations may be brought into force under this provision. With all respect to the ability of the Minister, I am very doubtful whether he could give the House a categorical statement now as to what are the matters on which regulations may be made.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If the hon. Gentleman wants an answer I will give him one at once. Here is an illustration.

Sir R. ASKE: I do not want an illustration.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I cannot say exactly what regulations will be made, but here is an illustration. A company after the War wished to build a number of passenger ships of a new type. There were difficulties over the Board's requirements that fuel oil must have a flash point of not less than 175 degrees. They pointed out that oil with a flash point so high was difficult to obtain commercially, but that if the flash point could be fixed at 150 degrees ample supplies were available commercially and they could get ahead. After discussion with experts this was found to be a safe figure, and the necessary instructions were given to the surveyors to accept this flash point. Had we not had the power to alter that regulation on the spot this ship could not have been built. That is the type of regulation. It must be flexible.

Sir R. ASKE: It is quite easy to give one illustration or a number of illustrations. What we want is information as to what regulations the Board desire to bring into operation. A number of the most eminent and experienced men in the
shipping industry set about the task of endeavouring to ascertain what existing regulations are not covered by the terms of the Convention. They had to give up the task as hopeless, and I venture to say that there is no one, except, possibly, some gentleman who has charge of the archives of the Board of Trade, who could give a categorical answer to the problem. But the point is not merely one as to whether the Board of Trade should have power to issue regulations or not. If regulations are necessary for the safety of passengers and crews, no one wishes that regulations should not be made. The only point is that when we are introducing, for the first time in these matters, in this country, discrimination against British shipping and in favour of foreign shipping, the shipping community claim that the question is one on which this House ought not to give up its right of exercising a veto. Let the Board of Trade make any regulations they will, but those regulations ought to be placed on the Table of this House in order that the House may give its decision upon them, if they are found to be unnecessary and, particularly, if they are found to be undesirable.
In view of the great alterations made in this Convention, which begins a new era in these matters, it will be necessary to go through all the eixsting regulations and revise them. On account of the fact that there will be discrimination in the future it will be necessary to revise them, not from the old point of view as affecting British and foreign ships alike, but as affecting only British ships, and, possibly, imposing serious obligations upon them. I should like some assurance from my hon. Friend that he will give this matter the most careful reconsideration before this Bill goes to Committee. This is no time to bring in new methods of discrimination against British shipping. We have suffered enough in this country in the past by flag discrimination, and it seems ironic that, at this stage, when the Government are bringing in a wide Measure to protect British industry against foreign competition, they should at the same time propose a new principle which would discriminate against British ships in favour of foreign ships. I am authorised to say on behalf of the shipping trade that, much as they value the advantages of the uniformity which this
Convention would give, yet, if it became a choice between accepting this Bill as it stands and remaining in the same position as we are in at present, they would have no hesitation in saying that they would rather be as they are now, without a Convention. They would rather be in a position in which British and foreign shipping are on an equal footing, than subject British shipping to this further discrimination without the House of Commons having any opportunity of expressing its veto on these matters.

Captain MOSS: I am encouraged to speak on the Second Reading of this Bill because I can do so from the particular and peculiar experience which I have derived as a master mariner. Indeed I understand that I may even claim the distinction of being the first practical British shipmaster to occupy a seat in this House and I put forward what I believe to be the views and opinions of those in our own great service who ought to be best able to judge of the advisability of the passage of this Bill as it stands. I do not desire to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill but later I hope to have the privilege of putting down an Amendment asking for the exclusion of Clause 29 which deals with the reversal of the helm orders. In these circumstances, I do not desire at this stage to occupy the time of the House unduly but there are one or two points to which I desire to refer. In the first place this Bill is designed for the preservation of life at sea, yet Clause 29 has been designed specifically to reverse the sense of such time-honoured seamanship orders as "port" and "starboard" and, seemingly, on the confession of the Parliamentary Secretary himself, this is to be done at the dictate of small foreign maritime Powers. I am sure that the House will agree that such a proposal is not and cannot be conducive to the safety of life at sea.
I asked a shipowner recently why he was desirous of seeing this Bill pass through all its stages in its entirety and his reply was somewhat surprising. He immediately said, "Because the advantages are greater than the disadvantages." It seems evident to me, and I hope that it will appear evident to the House, that the shipowners who are themselves responsible, in conjunction with the Board of Trade officials who were
delegates to this international maritime conference, for this Convention and for this particular Clause to which I object, themselves admit that there are disadvantages in this Bill—I presume only in Clause 29. But may I refer for a moment to the advantages 2 Let us see exactly what these advantages are. It is the intention of this Convention to ask the largest and the finest mercantile marine service in this world to alter a system of helm orders which has given satisfaction and been successfully practised, without accident, all the way down through the centuries. We are to make this sacrifice in order to bring small foreign maritime Powers into line with Great Britain in such important matters as the load line and the regulations for the carrying of deck cargo. These in themselves would be a very decided advantage to the British shipping industry.
I can quite appreciate and sympathise with the point of view of the shipowner in this country, and I can understand the necessity for bringing foreign ships into line with British ships in so far as the load line is concerned, because it would immediately remove that element of unfairness in competition to which the British shipowner has for long enough been subjected through the adoption by foreign shipowners of the practice of overloading and also of carrying deck cargoes which are greater than would be permitted under the regulations governing and controlling British shipowners. I was not surprised at, but I regretted, the necessity under which the Parliamentary Secretary found himself of admitting that unless we are prepared to make this sacrifice in regard to helm orders in British shipping, foreign maritime Powers will refuse to come into line with British shipping in these essential matters to which I have referred.
We appreciate that this Bill is essentially a Bill to further the preservation of the safety of life at sea, vet we have these foreign maritime Powers only willing to consider the safety of life of their own nationals at sea provided that the largest maritime Power in the world, controlling, navigating, and being responsible for more than 23,000,000 tons of British shipping, accepts this responsibility of the alteration of the helm orders. If this particular Clause can be removed in Committee, the House can make up its mind with absolute safety
to seeing this Bill placed upon the Statute Book of this country and can characterise it as the finest contribution to the safety of life at sea that has yet been introduced by any country in the world, and in the interests of the maritime nations of the world; but if this Bill is to find its way on to the Statute Book with Clause 29 included as it stands, then I trust the House will recognise that they are agreeing to an altogether intolerable interference by foreign nations in what is, after all, but domestic detail in the handling and navigation of our own ships, and that we are being subjected to small nations and expected, as the largest nation, to bow the knee, just as we have done in many other directions, and in none more so than in the direction of disarmament.
The United States of America, whose mercantile marine consists of some 14,500,000 tons of shipping, has definitely refused to change its present system of helm orders, which is precisely the same as our own, and these two nations, Great Britain and America, comprising between 37,000,000 and 38,000,000 tons of shipping, are to be dictated to by countries such as Germany, with 4,000,000 tons, France, with 3,000,000 tons, Norway, with 3,000,000 tons, and all the other nations who are signatory to this Convention, being still smaller in their aggregate tonnage. They are to be permitted to dictate to the two largest nations, and unless we are prepared to make this sacrifice, we are not to see the real meaning of this Bill brought into being, and we are not to enjoy, in the interests of the safety of life at sea, the inclusion of these small Powers along with this country in such matters of outstanding importance as the load line and the carriage of deck cargo.
I trust that, while the House will raise no objection to the Second Reacting of the Bill, it will find itself compelled to support this very essential Amendment for the deletion of Clause 29. If that Clause should be deleted, I repeat that this Bill may go on to the Statute Book with the blessing of this House, for it will then be, in my humble judgment—and I trust the House will agree with me—the greatest contribution to the preservation and safety of life at sea, affecting alike all the maritime nations of the world.

Mr. BROCKLEBANK: First, I should like to congratulate the Board of Trade upon bringing to a conclusion the long negotiations which have taken place before this Bill has reached its present form. That the Conventions at which so many nations were represented should come to so great a degree of unanimity is, I think, a great example from the shipping world which others might well follow. But in all international Conventions, just as in questions of life, no man expects to get all that he desires. As in this House, in relation to another place, sometimes there are discussions as to what would be best and desirable to give way a little bit, so in this Bill, we should be prepared to give up something which in the past has been very dear to British seamen, in order that we should get what to my mind far outweighs that which we are asked to give up. Safety of life at sea is something like safety of life in the mines. People who are engaged in the occupation are so much up against danger that they become reckless. It is a matter for congratulation that we can get such a large measure of agreement in such difficult and complicated subjects going deep into mathematics, geography and latitude and longitude.
There are only two things, as the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out, about which there is any comparative controversy. I find myself, to some extent, in disagreement with the last speaker with regard to Clause 29, because I think the vast majority of people have now come to see that it is wiser to give up an old custom than to imperil life. For instance, a British ship master in a foreign port would get one order. He might say that his steersman found difficulty in obeying that order, as it might be in a different language from that which he sometimes uses. It seems, therefore, wise to give up this old custom. Of course, there are people who would find it extremely difficult to change the custom of a lifetime, but I think that those people are excluded from the Bill. For instance, in Clause 40:
sailing ships under 80 tons register engaged solely in the coasting trade.
Further, paragraph (c) says:
ships solely engaged in fishing.
2.0 p.m.
In the fishing fleets that go out from our ports people would find it difficult, perhaps, to alter what they have been used
to, and which is now not second nature, but their entire nature. They are excluded. So, on the whole, while I own that it is a great demand to make upon a custom, it is wise, because of the great advantages, that we should give up what we have held in the past.
Then the Parliamentary Secretary referred to Clause 35, and I should like to impress upon him that, perhaps in the Committee stage, he would give great consideration to what my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle, East (Sir R. Aske) has said with regard to that Clause. It is very keenly thought about by shipping owners, although I do not know that I would go quite as far as he when he says that they would be prepared to scrap the whole of these Conventions and this Bill for that one provision. But I greatly hope that what he has said has been impressed upon the Parliamentary Secretary, and I will conclude by again congratulating the Board of Trade upon introducing this Bill

Commander MARSDEN: Practically everything has been said so far on this Bill by those connected with the sea in every shape and form, and as I find myself so much in accord with what has been said, I will not weary the House by repeating the arguments. I trust that those Members who have not read through this voluminous book will do so, because I think they will be astonished at the care and forethought displayed in looking after the safety of those who go down to the sea in ships. Some of the best points in the Bill have not been mentioned so far. One realises after years at sea that the best methods of saving life are not necessarily, for example, filling up the ship with belts. This Bill is very clear as to the extra safeguards in the way of wireless and closer watch in the wireless rooms. Among other proposals is the provision for the locating of ice on the Northern sea routes, and 1 only regret it is not a British ship which is doing this service, so that the money voted for that service would go to British seamen.
There are numerous other points to which one might refer, but I come to the most debatable, and the first is the owner's point of view. If an Amendment is proposed to alter the wording of Clause 35 by adding the words "or
before," I shall support that Amendment, because I think it is very necessary. The Government have said that any Order made by the Board of Trade subsequent to the passing of this Bill must be placed before the House, and I am of opinion that any Orders made previously to the passing of this Bill should also be laid before the House. 1 am not in the shipping trade in that direction myself, but I have close knowledge of the fact that some of the Board of Trade regulations, with the worthy object of protecting ships and cargoes, are so drastic that a great deal of trade is taken away from our shipowners. For instance, the timber trade regulations made by our own Board of Trade are much more severe than those made by other nations, who are able to carry these timber cargoes in various parts of the world with as great a number of safe passages as the most drastic Board of Trade official at home could possibly desire or hope for.
Another point is this: There are existing regulations which, as I think, the Parliamentary Secretary rather suggested lie dormant and might well be resuscitated. Supposing, for example, the great emigrant traffic came back, and with it a great demand for large ships to carry emigrants. We should be left behind, because other countries would be able to take those emigrants and deliver them safely, while our ships would not be allowed to go forth, because the old regulations, which are now lying more or less dormant, would then be resuscitated, we should know nothing about it and our shipping industry would suffer.
The only other point on which I might say something are these very much disputed helm orders. My hon. Friend who spoke on this subject might be interested to know that he is not the only master mariner in the House. I also have that very great honour. There is nothing I prize more than my master mariner's certificate, and although I am retired from the Navy I am not retired from the sea. At the present moment I confine my sea-going to a small yacht, but these helm orders affect anybody who goes to sea at all in any capacity. I am of opinion that this provision should not be allowed to stand exactly as it is, and I might on some other oppor-
tunity suggest a redrafting to make the words clearer—perhaps not 'clearer to those lawyers who interpret these things in the courts, but clearer to the sailors who have to carry them out in practice. These helm orders will be chalked up and down the seven seas and debated very keenly. To show how keen the debate is On the subject, a conference was called by the Board of Trade two years ago and the various associations were represented—owners, officers, Trinity House, pilots and the Admiralty. Their feeling was absolutely even for and against the change. The only representation which did not give an opinion was that of the Admiralty, who subsequently said that they were quite prepared to stand by any finding that was arrived at, quite satisfied that the new helm orders could be carried out without any danger or difficulty.
When we find a large body of seamen like that differing, we may be certain that if a discussion took place in this House, the Eleven o'Clock Rule would have to be suspended indefinitely, and then we should not be able to come to any satisfactory decision. I know perfectly well, being a sailor, that among so many who have spoken and signed petitions, and so on, against this change, the feeling is largely that whenever there is an international discussion, all other countries are represented equally with England, although their interests are very much lower than ours. Whatever the subject, whether disarmament or helm orders, it is always this country which has to give way. We may say that our seamen have a far higher sense of the position of our country than a great many of our representatives at these conferences. That is the feeling that seamen have, and although they may not disagree with the helm orders, it is actually that feeling that this country has always to give way that determines their opposition.
Helm orders are a technical subject, and one might talk about them for a long time. You actually refer to helm orders because you are talking about the helm. No doubt hon. Members present know the relationship between the rudder, the tiller and the wheel. The wheel is a compartively new invention. There was always the rudder and all our
science has not yet discovered any other method of steering a ship than by a rudder. The simplest thing with a tiller was to tell the helmsman to put the tiller to port or starboard. If you told him to put it to port, he put it to port. In after years the wheel was introduced, and that reversed the position. When the tiller was put one way, the helm was put the other. But what are we asking now? We are asking that we should go back to the logical position of years ago when there was only the tiller. We are now asking that if the ship wants to go to starboard the helmsman should be told to put the wheel to starboard.
The skilled seaman will naturally react to his training, and the unskilled man such as the chauffeur whom the Parliamentary Secretary takes to Paris with him, can be taken in a, ship and told: "Don't bother about any seafaring knowledge; if I say Right' put the wheel to the right, and if I say Left' put the wheel to the left." That man could do his job satisfactorily, and you could take a ship to sea with him and be confident with him. But no man, however clever or logical,, could possibly get the fact that if you said "Starboard," he had to put the wheel to port, and vice versa. If there is therefore a danger that in the transition the orders may misfire, I think that there is little doubt that when the transition stage is over, it will be for the safer conduct of ships.
Take the question of pilots. It is true, as has been pointed out, that when a foreign ship comes into our waters, the pilot has to go on board and say, "Which way do you want, the old or the new way?" In other words, the English pilot can do it any way you like. I am certain that the ability of the mercantile marine is not so small that they will not seize on the new system of helm orders as soon as they are put into force. This is the first occasion on which I have addressed the House, and I hope that it will not be the last. There will be a further discussion of these things in Committee, when I shall hope to have the opportunity of saying much more.

Sir JOHN GANZONI: I cannot help regarding this Measure with a certain amount of suspicion, though I am by no
means hostile to all of it. I should like, however, a certain amount of reassurance from the Board of Trade, for it is their attitude towards the whole question which puzzles me most. I have been a little alarmed at the unanimity of the shipping interests in favour of it, and I am inclined to wonder whether that is possibly due to the fact that the provisions for the safety of life at sea and the actual provision of material for that purpose may not come cheaper under this Bill than under the present Board of Trade regulations. Though the Bill is a voluminous labyrinth, there is not a Clause in it which excuses British shipowners from observing the more stringent Board of Trade regulations.
With regard to the helm orders, which of. course cause most anxiety, I under- stand that after the Bill becomes an Act, helm orders must be given in a direct sense having regard to the direction in which the ship's head is proceeding at the time, and there will be a penalty of £50 for giving orders once in the contrary sense. We all know that the railway packet every day of its life, or twice a day, goes stern first into Boulogne. Which way is it to give its orders when the ship's head is going astern? Has the Board of Trade provided for that? I do not know where the Board of Trade get their advice on these subjects. Perhaps they do not take it from such people as masters of steamers. They may have had recourse to very hardened shellbacks from the windjammers, of whom there was at least one on the Labour benches in the last Parliament. I think that I am right in saving, however, that you will not hear of any British sailing ship at sea using such words as "port" and "starboard." The terms used are "luff" and "keep her away." That being so, I have a certain amount of distrust of Clause 41. After all, the present indirect method has suited us very well over a great number of years, and it is news to me that British seamen take the seamen of any other nation as their example.
One thing about which I should like to be reassured is how far the Admiralty acquiesce in this change. The hon. and gallant Member for North Battersea (Commander Marsden) said that the Admiralty, after some demur, had agreed
to work these orders if the change were made, and did not think that in the end much harm would result. That may be so, but if there is any harm in the interval it will happen in our generation. I do not know whether it is any good asking the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade whether the Admiralty would be prepared to send the Atlantic Fleet to sea the week after this change is introduced to carry out a complicated set of manoeuvres. I should not like to go with them in that case. There is a good deal more I should have liked to say, but I find myself very much in agreement with the hon. and gallant Member for North Battersea in the maiden speech he has made, and therefore it is not necessary for me to trouble the House for so long as it would have been otherwise.
My real object in rising was to make it clear that, while a considerable number of us in this House do not wish to prevent the Board of Trade getting through a Bill to give effect to an international convention—because in matters of this importance it is a great advantage for the nations to have the same code and to pull together—there is yet a certain amount of suspicion as to the nature of the technical advice which bas been given to the Board of Trade. I have not looked through the list of the Ministry lately to see how many bluff sailors are there, men who are thoroughly familiar with spun yarn and Stockholm tar, but if I get an assurance that in spite of the petition of the Master Mariners' Association, in spite of the large amount of advice that has been proffered, and the large amount of printed matter which has been circulated against this Bill, the Board of Trade are still satisfied that, on the whole, they are acting for the best, I shall not be a party to dividing the House against the Second Reading, though I wish to have the opportunity of doing my bit towards seeing that the helm order Clause is deleted upstairs.

Mr. NUNN: I wish to join mine to those voices which have spoken against the inclusion of Clause 29, in the hope that it may still be possible for the Board of Trade to do something to relieve the seamen of our nation from the affront which is undoubtedly being put upon them. We, who are the leading
maritime nation of the world, now find ourselves in the position of having to give up our traditional method of controlling ships. But it is not merely a matter of sentiment. It has been said that this alteration can be made without any grave danger of accidents at sea. I do not know that anyone can produce a single instance of any accident having occurred at sea under our present system of helm orders. I speak with some little personal knowledge, because I have conducted I do not know how many preliminary inquiries into shipping accidents, and I have never heard of it; and I believe it is right to say that the President of the Admiralty Court has never heard of any accident arising from the present system of helm orders. Therefore, it seems unnecessary that our seamen should be affronted in what appears to be a more or less wanton manner. I dare say that most Members of the House have received a great number of communications on this matter. On the seat beside me I have a note of a petition signed by 8,670 navigating officers in active service who are against the change, and when I ask the Board of Trade to give some further consideration to Clause 29 I do so knowing that the navigating officers of the mercantile marine generally are against it. I may go even further, and say that the bulk of those who know anything about the sea are against this alteration.
It is one of the extraordinary things in life that very often the strongest person, and the person in the right, has to give way. If this Clause is accepted it will be simply because our common decency of feeling urges us to give way in order to gain what are the undoubted advantages of the Bill. I am not going to discuss them, but everybody knows that there are great advantages, and I will confine myself to a plea for a reconsideration of Clause 29. It has already been hinted that in any case it will have to be altered, because it is technically incorrect. This is supposed to be a Measure for securing the safety of life at sea. An alteration of helm orders may not be effectual for that purpose. The mercantile marine, though manned by most excellent seamen, includes also some men whose characters will not bear the closest investigation during the few hours immediately after they have joined their ship and while she is putting out to sea. It often hap-
pens that in those few hours those men are under the influence of—emotion, shall we say—arising from having to leave their homes to go to sea. Under the influence of that emotion it is just possible that the most praiseworthy British seaman may find himself automatically following the practice in which he has been brought up, and I look forward with considerable apprehension to what may follow the introduction of this new system.
This Measure, while including something which is, I say it with all due deference, to a certain extent offensive to the seamen of this nation, does nothing whatever in a much more important direction. It does not attempt to standardise the qualifications which are necessary before a man can gain a navigating officer's certificate, nor does it ensure that there shall be a proper investigation of shipping accidents affecting the vessels of other nations. This nation, I was going to say almost alone among the nations of the world, conducts its shipping inquiries with absolute impartiality and with extreme thoroughness. Anybody who has knocked about on foreign ships knows that not only is the standard of navigation there sometimes very much below that of this country, but I myself have conducted an inquiry at which a foreign skipper has admitted under cross-examination that his qualification was obtained at an inland school before he had ever been to sea. That occurred some 20 years ago, I admit., and things may have been altered since, but I have seen the most slack procedure on foreign ships. I have seen a ship in the Sunda Strait—whose sister vessel had been lost only three months before with practically all on board—without a single navigating officer on the bridge and with only a Chinese quartermaster in charge there. There is nothing in this Measure to prevent that sort of thing going on; nothing Which requires foreign nations to introduce provisions ensuring that navigating
officers shall be properly qualified and that there shall be proper inquiries into accidents at sea. With those few words, I would once again urge the Board of Trade to do what they can to meet the wishes of the great mass of navigation officers.

Orders of the Day — MERCHANT SHIPPING (SAFETY AND LOAD LINE CONVENTIONS) [EXPENSES].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in. the Chair.]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session providing (among other matters) for giving effect to an International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, signed in London on the 31st day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums required for the contribution from the United Kingdom towards maintaining, in accordance with articles thirty-six and thirty-seven of the said Convention, a service in the North Atlantic for the destruction and removal of derelicts, for the study and observation of ice conditions, and for ice patrol."—(King's Recommendation signified).—[Mr. Runciman.]

Resolution to he reported upon Monday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER adjourned the Rouse, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at Twenty-seven Minutes after Two o'Clock until Monday next, 8th February.